First, the Massachusetts vote was not a “Massacre”: Brown won 51 percent of the vote.

Secondly, this was not a referendum which shows that the public opposes health care reform. Among Massachusetts’ voters who said health care was their top issue, 53 percent voted for Democrat Martha Coakley reports JoAnne Kenen, over at the “The MA Message? Not So Fast” New America Foundation Kenen understands politics better than most health care commentators: for more than a decade, she covered Congress for Reuters. Ignoring what the pundits are saying about “the Massachusetts message”, Kenen looked at the data: “Jill Lawrence at Politics Daily crunched some Massachusetts numbers and discovered that ‘a solid majority—56 percent—said health care was their top issue.’ And 53 percent of them voted for . . . Coakley.” http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/20/poll-majority-of-massachusetts-health-voters-wanted-to-save-ref/ “Majority of MA Healthcare Voters wanted to Save Reform” Politics Daily

Third, health care reform is not dead. Democrats are not going to walk away from the issue. If they did, they would give the conservatives everything they need to re-take Washington. “President Obama is incapable of governing,” the opposition would argue. “He is another Jimmy Carter.” Obama would be left a dead man walking. Democrats who had voted for reform would then have to try to explain to voters that either a) they were right but just weren’t able to pass legislation that so many Americans sorely need –even though they had a majority or b) it wasn’t that important after all. Yes, your insurance premiums are likely to rise by 25%–or more—over the next four years . . . and if you lose your job, you’re in big trouble. But, well . . . we had other priorities. .

Fourth, I very much doubt that Republicans will step up to help forge a bipartisan bill.Granted, Sam Stein reports Progressive Democrats are now worrying a pared down package — stripping it to its unobjectionable core (insurance regulation, money to help people buy care, etc.) – could lead to Republicans claiming they saved Healthcare reform. “New Dem Worry: GOP Taking Credit for Healthcare Reform,” Huffington Post

“Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ‘will have his whole caucus vote for it and make it a political win for the Republicans,’ one well-connected Democratic health care strategist said. ‘They’ll say, “This was the Republican plan from the beginning. We’re glad the Democrats joined us.” And take all the credit for passing reform.’” Indeed, “On Thursday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich suggested that the Republican Party do just that Stein Observes, quoting Glen Thrush Politico. Gingrich argued that it would be “clever” for the GOP to pass non-controversial reform measures with “huge bipartisan majorities.” But consider the rest of what Newt said: “he thinks many Republicans disdain Pelosi so much they simply won’t go along with anything with the speaker’s name on it, even if it serves the party’s larger interests.”

“If you are a House member in the [GOP] caucus, I suspect we are about to have a huge argument. We could get clever and work with her…And I think people should work with her… But at that point it becomes a huge problem because nobody trusts her; they distrust her ideology, and distrust her because she has run over them so hard.

A lot of Republicans would work with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, but they won’t work with her,” added Gingrich.

As I reported yesterday, I agree with Bob Laszewski. “The problem with bipartisanship now is that the Republican base is not about to let any of their own Senators do anything to take the Dems off the political meat hook from which they are now dangling. A Smaller Bipartisan Bill, What It Could Look Like” HealthCare Policy and Market Review.

The anger is visceral, and it’s not just directed at Pelosi.

Liberals and conservatives disagree on very basic values. Try to imagine what a “bipartisan” bill would look like. Please read Naomi’s post, outlining the Republican health care proposal below Can We Really Have a Bipartisan Heath Care Plan HealthBeat

There is no individual mandate—because there is no requirement that insurers offer you an affordable plan if you suffer from “a pre-existing condition.” In other words, many of the sick remain uninsured. Most of the middle-class and lower-middle class who don’t have employer-based insurance also would be left out in the cold. Subsidies would be available only to those earning up to 200% of the Federal poverty level (not 400% as in the Senate bill). And the subsidies would be too small; at best, families would be able to buy a skimpy policy that shouldn’t even be called “insurance.”

Meanwhile, employers would be allowed to charge employees premiums that are 50 percent higher than the premiums their colleagues pay if they are overweight and can’t lose weight –or if they don’t want to take cholesterol-lowering drugs because of side effects that include deep muscle pain and memory loss. You might be exempted if you bring a note from your doctor: can you imagine explaining to your employer that you’ve been suffering too many “senior moments” and have a hard time remembering what you are doing? Or that everyone in your family is overweight and that your doctor says it’s genetic? (Many employers adamantly refuse to believe that this is true.)

I could go on. There is no way to reconcile these differences. Conservatives do not believe that health care is a right, or that a civilized society has a responsibility to provide care for all.

What Those Who Understand Our Health Care System Say

Finally, a group of 45 health-care experts have sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman and George Miller calling on progressive reformers to stay the course. “Tap Dump” Washington Post (Thanks to Ezra Klein for pointing to this document)

“We have come further than we have ever come before,” they write. “Only two steps remain. The House must adopt the Senate bill, and the President must sign it.”

“While the House and Senate bills differ on specific points, they are built on the same framework and common elements—eliminating health status underwriting and insurance abuses, creating functioning insurance markets, offering affordability credits to those who cannot afford health insurance, requiring that all Americans act responsibly and purchase health insurance if they are able to do so, expanding Medicaid to cover all poor Americans, reforming Medicare payment to encourage quality and control costs, strengthening the primary care workforce, and encouraging prevention and wellness.”

“Some differences between the bills, such as the scope of the tax on high-cost plans and the allocation of premium subsidies, should be repaired through the reconciliation process. Key elements of this repair enjoy broad support in both houses. Other limitations of the Senate bill can be addressed through other means.”

“The Senate bill accomplishes most of what both houses of Congress set out to do; it would largely realize the goals many Americans across the political spectrum espouse in achieving near universal coverage and real delivery reform.”

“With the loss of Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat, Democrats no longer enjoy a filibuster-proof Senate majority, though they still enjoy the largest Senate majority any party has achieved in the past generation. The loss of this one vote does not require Congress or the President to abandon Senator Kennedy’s life work of health care reform. A year of political infighting, misleading debates about death panels and socialized medicine, and sheer inaction has left Americans exhausted, confused, and disgruntled. Americans are also bearing the severe consequences of deep recession and unemployment. Still, a majority of Americans support the elements of the Senate bill.”

“The House of Representatives faces a stark choice. It can enact the Senate bill, and realize the century-old dream of health care reform. By doing so, it can achieve a historic milestone while freeing itself to address other national problems such as joblessness and mortgage foreclosure that affect millions of Americans. Differences between the House and Senate bill can be negotiated through the reconciliation process.”

“Alternatively, Congress can abandon this effort at this critical moment, leaving millions more Americans to become uninsured in the coming years as health care becomes ever less affordable. Abandoning health care reform—the signature political issue of this administration—would send a message that Democrats are incapable of governing and lead to massive losses in the 2010 election, possibly even in 2012. Such a retreat would also abandon the chance to achieve reforms that millions of Americans across the political spectrum desperately need in these difficult times. Now is the moment for calm and resolute leadership, pressing on toward the goal now within sight.”

“Some have proposed dividing the bill or starting anew with negotiations to produce a less comprehensive bill. From the perspective of both politics and policy, we do not believe this is a feasible option. We doubt that the American public would welcome more months of partisan wrangling and debate. We doubt that the final product would match what has already been achieved. Indeed we doubt that any bill would reach the President’s desk should congressional leaders pursue this misguided course.”

This letter is signed by people who truly understand what’s wrong with our health care system—and what needs to be done.

I know many of them. I respect them. I have quoted some of them in my book and on this blog. And I wholeheartedly agree with them.

Forget the personal politics. Forget who disappointed you. This is about people who need health care—and the fact that we must make that care affordable. Spiraling health care costs are the greatest threat to the U.S. economy. Cost control cannot be spelled out in the legislation; we don’t want politicians deciding where to make cuts. Healthcare professionals will have to make those decisions, based on medical evidence that tells us where our health care dollars can best be spent to benefit patient

Comments (96)

Jack

January 25, 2010 6:54 pm

Problem being that there are some very objectional provisions in the Senate bill. Not surprising as it was cobbled together by a group with some very objectionable priorities,the most important of which did not seem to include cost effective health care financing.There is little better than token reform of insurance provider conduct. There is an absurd tax on health care benefits that the working middle class will be further burdened by. All in all it’s a pretty shitty bill. Oh, but reform for the sake of just a concept rather than an accomplishment is more important than real reform.

Lyle

January 25, 2010 7:09 pm

There is a way to cut healthcare costs in the spirit of Johathon Swift, say no health care measure may be paid for with insurance if it was developed after 1950 or some other date, thereby stopping all medical research. (Recall Swifts modest proposal called for eating babies)

Cantab

January 25, 2010 7:23 pm

First, the Massachusetts vote was not a “Massacre”: Brown won 51 percent of the vote.

One seat does not make for a Massacre. The Brown win was more like the Doolittle raid on Tokyo in WWII. One seat is small damage but it seems like as with the Doolittle raid to have changed which side has the momentum. It has popped the sense that the country’s move to the left is inevitable. Moreover, the democrat party is full of doubt now and the republicans have been given a needed morale boost.

I don’t have any doubt that the Whitehouse was set to push the healthcare bill through the congress. They could have done this before Brown was ever seated. The fact that they have not leads me to believe when they polled their member they found that they had lost votes and no longer had the votes needed to override a filibuster.

Obama postponed his state of the Union speech to give Coakley a chance to move to Washington, be seated, and cast the final deciding vote on healthcare. But she lost so he’s now stuck there like in the Seinfeld episode trying to pitch the country on a presidency about nothing.

buffpilot

January 25, 2010 7:23 pm

rdan,

Your in denial. Brown’s win was a vote against Obamacare. Its dead.

The House will not pass the Senate bill (have you not been listening?) – probably doesn’t have 100 votes for it in this climate. The Dems are not going to royally piss of the unions by passing it. And the Blue Dogs etc are not falling on their swords and losing their jobs for Obama – notice Biden’s son just dropped out of the race for the VPs old seat? Thus any bill will have to go through both the Senate and House and the Reps will filibuster any huge bill.

The way forward is to pass the bill in incremental, very popular steps. That may work. But right now its obvious that Obama has moved on to jobs.

And killing HSA’s and large-deductable policies, which the Dems plan would do, is not a good way to reform health-care. And if we need to provide health care to the poor and needy – I’m all for a welfare type program – but it does NOT need the Senate or House monstrocities to get their. The key is in the details as always. What would your welfare recipiant die from that the rich grandmother just writes a check for lives another decade? What will be the minimum coverage?

I’m sorry Rdan but Obamacare is dead…thankfully!

Islam will change

rl love

January 25, 2010 7:27 pm

My political roots have always been firmly anchored on the left. And I began arguing on behalf of universal care about 30 years ago. But, during the current health-care debate I found myself marginalized from the Dems because their argument has been lacking in integrity from the start. To begin with, they continue to use the admin costs of Medicare as compared to those of the Insurance industry and this is an obvious attempt to deceive. Medicare has lower admin costs on the surface but of course they payout untold billions each year in fraudulent claims because they don’t invest in the same protective measures that private industry does. Then too there is the cost shifting that drives up private costs and this is a well known charity element that has obscured any chance of an honest comparison and still the pot continues to call the kettle black: “A year of political infighting, misleading debates about death panels and socialized medicine,…”, as if the Dems have an exclusive on integrity. This quote from the post is in fact less offensive than most such efforts although it is still at about a middle-school level of hypocrisy. And that is without including the conversations we should have had, openly, about iatrogenic costs, prevalence rates, and incentive issues. I suspect that whether this bill passes or not, we will have made little if any progress.

run75441

January 25, 2010 7:27 pm

Jack:

“There is an absurd tax on health care benefits that the working middle class will be further burdened by.”How so?

run75441

January 25, 2010 8:13 pm

buff:

Go back to the top of the post and read who wrote this article, it wasn’t rdan. The vote had nothing to do with healthcare as the approval rate in MA was in favor of healthcare reform. The vote for Brown was about jobs and banks.

As far as the Senate Bill not getting through the House, I don’t think the fat lady has sung yet and she is hesitating to get on the stage. Lets see what happens over the next week or so and see if Obama has balls.

CoRev

January 25, 2010 8:38 pm

Maggie, some one is in deep, deep denial. It is amonstrousity of a bill that does little to impreve healthcare and even less than that to lower costs. A 40% tax on ?cadillac? health plans? A sure way to lower costs as more drop their insurance.

There was so much wrong with the Senate Bill that many voted for it by holding their nose. The revised version that is still unseen is unlikely to be better as it probably will be loaded with even more “special” features for Friends of Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

The dems are between a rock and hard place. If they continue to force the current revised or senate version of the bill through, there will be an even bigger voter backlash. The Repubs are in a somewhat better position, but not out of the woods for blame.

Maggie, from the tone of this article it appears that the fear is more of having lost the political high ground, and giving any of it to the GOP. What is misunderstood is that Dems never held it. Most voters never thought health care reform was a high priority.

CoRev

January 25, 2010 8:42 pm

Maggie, some one is in deep, deep denial. It is a monstrousity of a bill that does little to improve healthcare and even less to lower costs. A 40% tax on ?cadillac? health plans? is a sure way to lower costs as more drop their insurance.

There was so much wrong with the Senate Bill that many voted for it by holding their nose. The revised version that is still unseen is unlikely to be better as it probably will be loaded with even more “special” features for Friends of Obama, Pelosi and Reid. A simpler more palatable bill is still possible to be passed, but if Dems contiue to make stupid political decisions based upon tis comment: “…could lead to Republicans claiming they saved Healthcare reform. “New Dem Worry: GOP Taking Credit for Healthcare Reform,” is just plain silly politics.

Maggie, from the tone of this article it appears that the fear is more of having lost the political high ground, and giving any of it to the GOP. What is misunderstood is that Dems never held it. Most voters never thought health care reform was a high priority.The dems are between a rock and hard place. If they continue to force the current revised or senate version of the bill through, there will be an even bigger voter backlash. The Repubs are in a somewhat better position, but not out of the woods for blame.

CoRev

January 25, 2010 8:46 pm

Run, sorry but you are in denial, dude. ” I will be the 41st vote against the health care bill” was his campaign promise.

run75441

January 25, 2010 9:05 pm

CorRev:

Now is your chance, detail the issues with the Senate bill. You named one perceived issue, what are the other issues

sammy

January 25, 2010 9:13 pm

“The 7 stages of Grief”

Stage 1: Shock and Denial

“In this stage, the person suffers from shock on knowing about the loss. Shock is a self defense stage of the mind and the outcome of it, many a times, is denial of the facts that have actually happened. A person in grief thinks that he is dreaming and he cannot / refuses to accept the grief causing situation. The time for which this stage lasts cannot be determined. Simple tasks and decisions cannot be carried out by a person in shock.

If 56% of all voters saw health care as their top priority, and 53% of those people voted for Martha Coakley, then less than 30% of all voters cast votes for her because they wanted her type of health care legislation.

sammy

January 25, 2010 9:39 pm

rdan,

The people have spoken. No one, Republicans or Dems, is going to vote for anything resembling Obamacare.

Obama went practically all in, and is now in danger of busting out.

Believe it or not, there is one way, and probably only one way, he can salvage this:

R’s will vote for it (if he is lucky). D’s will vote for it. Obama takes credit.

Cantab

January 25, 2010 9:46 pm

run,

The vote had nothing to do with healthcare as the approval rate in MA was in favor of healthcare reform. This is absurd. Brown ran on the fact that he would be the crucial vote against the healthcare bill. He also ran on cutting taxes (did you see the add where he morphed from JFK). Look at all the things I argue for, Brown is one of my guys.

Cantab

January 25, 2010 9:49 pm

Sammy,

That’s too sensible, and too much in the traditions of this country to be popular on the left.

sammy

January 25, 2010 9:51 pm

rdan,

The people have spoken. Actually they were speaking before the MA election. 0 just wasn’t listening. No one, Republicans or Dems, is going to vote for anything resembling Obamacare. It’s going into the trash next to HillaryCare.

Obama went practically all in, and is now in danger of busting out.

Believe it or not, there is one way, and probably only one way, he can salvage this:

R’s will vote for it (if he is lucky). D’s will vote for it. Obama takes credit.

sammy

January 25, 2010 9:54 pm

cantab,

It’s not in anyone’s interest for a failed presidency 1 year into office.

Greg

January 25, 2010 10:00 pm

Yes and less than 25% of all voters voted for Scott Brown because he was going to be the 41st vote against health care.

Some Guy

January 25, 2010 10:04 pm

Do you have any numbers for apples to apples comparisons? What percentage of Medicare payouts are fraudulent? What percentage of private insurers’ payouts are? Do those numbers look any different if adjusted for demographics, specifically income? How much do private insurers spend in fraud avoidance? How much does Medicare spend?

Based on everything I’ve read, it’s the wage gap between civil servants and private employees combined with economies of scale that keep administrative costs low. (See, I can make claims without supporting them, too.)

Seriously, I’ve read some academic papers on the issue & it takes a bit more to resolve than just some superficially logical sounding arguments.

Nancy Ortiz

January 25, 2010 10:32 pm

What’s worse? Millions in compensation for insurance executives who see to it that profits come in at the cost of thousands of lives a year? Or, underfunded agencies being unable to hire enough quality assessment employees because of starvation budgets? Be real. It’s amazing that CMS and SSA still exist, so little money has been budgeted for them during the past 30 years.

I’m not arguing for the Senate bill. It’s a real nightmare from an ordinary person’s perspecitve. I am arguing for fishing or cutting bait. Do it one way or another, or go home, Congress. Who the hell needs a bunch of chicken#### ditherers when the barn really is burning down?

Nancy Ortiz

January 25, 2010 10:36 pm

The Massachusetts election was a Rorschach’s test. It means one guy won one election over a less attractive candidate. Having married in haste, the voters in Massachusetts can repent at leisure. Playgirl. Jeez. NO

orlando

January 25, 2010 10:41 pm

sammy, do you have a link to the actual republican plan ? that summary has no details about the plan, just promises about what it would do

Your argument is exactly why the Dems Knew that they could do what you are trying to do. The questions you ask are impossible to answer, those perpetrating the frauds would have to be convicted thereof, and so, accuse the accuser of lacking support and claim that you have read:“Seriously, I’ve read some academic papers on the issue”, which of course you fail to support (the “Seriously” was very convincing though, probably from that staunchly academic influence). And your use of the term “superficial”, regarding material that is commonly known, documented on 60 minutes no less, provides my argument with a sophomoric example that substantiates my premise, so all I can say is THANKS.

ilsm

January 25, 2010 11:10 pm

I listen to Boston radio on my way to work.

Brown ads never mentioned being 41st vote, Croakley ads had that quote and innuendo.

Brown voted for the Mass version, which was not perfect but no one needed his vote to get it through.

ilsm

January 25, 2010 11:23 pm

Buff,

I am [regrettably] a life member of Reserve Officers’ Association.

Did that deed in a youthful fit of careerism looking for promotion, before I became an anti militarist, leftie, isolationist, follower of Pat Buchanon.

I did 30 years total active and reserve.

I do not follow their line any more, it is “we got you guys retirement at age 60”. So send more money so “we can make sure that health reform does not mess up Tricare”.

So, what is so good about being on Tricare for life, something that was added by ROA type lobbyists after the huge pay increases of the early 80’s already made the 20 year retirement highly lucrative?

ilsm

January 25, 2010 11:27 pm

True the most significant Qui Tam claims are about Medicare and Medicaid fraud.

The medicare frauds are not big defense contractors, so those frauds are defended by both the complicit inept US attorneys and highly paid lawyers.

If you worry about waste in your federal expenditures leave medicare fraud alone.

They are children compared to the war profiteers.

run75441

January 25, 2010 11:30 pm

Cantab:

Vienna got a rose tonight on “The Bachelor.“

run75441

January 25, 2010 11:33 pm

Movie Guy:

You are really pretty smart and I assign a certain degree of credence to your words. Tell me what healthcare means on the Pew Report you are citing.

run75441

January 25, 2010 11:44 pm

rl love:

You are going to have to define this: “same protective measures that private industry does.” Typically, the industry goes in whatever way Medicare goes. If Medicare says its cool to charge this, then the insurance industry uses Medicare as the fall-guy to do the same. There is little reason for the private industry not to do so.

On page 71 of the Manager’s Amendment, the Senate identifies the administrative costs for private insurance is ~26-30% (if I am wrong on the page number let me know and I will find it). The 85:15 and 80:20 ratios should work to lower those administrative costs between premiums and payouts and foce the healthcare insurance industry to be more efficient in passing paper.

You are a pretty smart person and write well (fawning over with); so I am curious as to where you are drawing your analysis. Enlighten me.

run75441

January 25, 2010 11:51 pm

Ilsm:

Who gives a rat ass (sorry dan) about your service. It is irrelevant to the issue. Spare me the military tripe. Can’t you talk about an issue without strutting around with the military jingoism? I gave my ribbons away.

Some Guy

January 26, 2010 12:01 am

If the questions are unanswerable, how do you know that Medicare’s administrative costs are lower because they don’t investigate fraud?

My only point about academic papers is that if researchers with datasets, complicated formulas and lots of time come to different conclusions about Medicare’s administrative costs, then “everybody knows” or anecdotal evidence is probably not going to be enough to settle the problem.

As to your reference to 60 minutes, that evidence isn’t particularly compelling. It’s hard to find where that $60 billion number they were throwing around came from. It struck me as an estimate of an estimate rounded up for headlines. Under Bush’s budget, fraud was estimated at $17 billion of 2008 Medicare payments. Obama cast a wider net for what constitutes a questionable payment & found $47 billion in 2009. (Questionable payments don’t equal fraud. Illegible signatures or documentation issues can render a payment questionable.)

So 3.75 to 10 percent. Even at the high end, that doesn’t close the gap in administrative costs. Especially when you consider that private insurers probably have to deal with at least 3% fraud themselves.

Movie Guy

January 26, 2010 12:19 am

The USA Today/Gallup poll conducted on January 20, 2010 indicated that 55% of Americans favor suspending work on the current healthcare bill and seek alternatives; only 39% favor continuing to try to pass the bill being negotiated in conference committee.

“According to the poll, most self-identified Democrats (67%) want Congress to continue working toward passage of the bill. However, an even larger majority of Republicans (87%) call for suspension of Congress’ current work on the bill. The majority of political independents [56%], whose support has been crucial to recent Republican election victories in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey, would also prefer to see the reform efforts put on hold rather than moved forward.”

“A minority of 32% of Americans say President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress are right to make healthcare reform their top priority at this time. In contrast, 46% acknowledge health reform as an important goal but believe other problems should be addressed first, and an additional 19% reject the idea that healthcare should be a major legislative priority.”

An interesting sidebar to the results of this and other polls is that the positions taken by independent voters are closely mirrored in the national outcomes. In this example:

All voters35% – continue to try and pass current bill55% – suspend work on bill and consider alternatives

Independent voters 37% – continue to try and pass current bill56% – suspend work on bill and consider alternatives

Polling which fails to identify the positions of independent voters may, in fact, reflect the general positions of independents in the national percentage outcomes. If reasonably correct, this information provides candidates and political parties with a general understanding of where independents stand on many of the issues.

Many Democrats appear to be out of step with the majority of voters in the USA regarding the existing Congressional healthcare bill under consideration by the conference committee. They might want to pay attention to the opinions of independent voters if they intend to salvage the 2010 midterm elections. I wouldn’t expect that to happen if the blogs are a viable yardstick; independents and their positions are routinely ignored in favor of standard liberal-conservative presentations and arguments.

Independent voters represent roughly one third of all voters in the nation. Maybe it’s time for both major political parties and the blogs to wake up.

Just as an aside, I think it’s interesting that Obama would cast his net so wide in estimating questionable payments. My guess is that estimating high on questionable payments means there’s more waste that can be cut out of Medicare. More wastes means more justifiable cuts to free up money for other health care priorities in the reform bill. Or maybe it really is just about transparency in the government.

Jack

January 26, 2010 12:22 am

I’m referring to the plan to place an excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans that are provided mostly through an employer. Granted that the details are murky, but there has been much said regarding the likely effect on the cost of such coverage to middle class workers. Every time the Senate claims to be taxing a “gold plated” aspect of eanings or benefits it seems to end up effecting the middle class wage earner. Remeber the Alternative Minimum Tax? From the NY Times, granted not the best source,: “The tax would be levied on insurers — or on employers that act as their own insurers. Either way, the tax would very likely be passed along to workers in even higher premiums than they pay now. But if insurance premiums continue to rise faster than inflation, as they have for years, many more people’s policies could end up setting off the luxury tax in coming years.“It puts a bigger tax on middle-income Americans who are already paying enough,” said Harold A. Schaitberger, the general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters. The union says some of its members around the country are in plans that would be subject to the tax” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/health/policy/21insure.html

Movie Guy

January 26, 2010 12:25 am

The USA Today/Gallup poll conducted on January 20, 2010 indicated that 55% of Americans favor suspending work on the current healthcare bill and seek alternatives; only 39% favor continuing to try to pass the bill being negotiated in conference committee.

“According to the poll, most self-identified Democrats (67%) want Congress to continue working toward passage of the bill. However, an even larger majority of Republicans (87%) call for suspension of Congress’ current work on the bill. The majority of political independents [56%], whose support has been crucial to recent Republican election victories in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey, would also prefer to see the reform efforts put on hold rather than moved forward.”

“A minority of 32% of Americans say President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress are right to make healthcare reform their top priority at this time. In contrast, 46% acknowledge health reform as an important goal but believe other problems should be addressed first, and an additional 19% reject the idea that healthcare should be a major legislative priority.”

An interesting sidebar to the results of this and other polls is that the positions taken by independent voters are closely mirrored in the national “all voters” outcomes. In this example:

All voters35% – continue to try and pass current bill55% – suspend work on bill and consider alternatives

Independent voters 37% – continue to try and pass current bill56% – suspend work on bill and consider alternatives

Polling which fails to identify the positions of independent voters may, in fact, reflect the general positions of independents in the national “all voters” percentage outcomes. If reasonably correct, this information provides candidates and political parties with a general understanding of where independents stand on many of the issues.

Democrats appear to be out of step with the majority of voters in the USA regarding the existing Congressional healthcare bill under consideration by the conference committee. They might want to pay attention to the opinions of independent voters if they intend to salvage the 2010 midterm elections. I wouldn’t expect that to happen if the blogs are a viable yardstick; independents and their positions are routinely ignored in favor of standard liberal-conservative presentations and arguments.

Independent voters represent roughly one third of all voters in the nation. Maybe it’s time for both major political parties and the blogs to wake up.

The USA Today/Gallup poll conducted on January 20, 2010 indicated that 55% of Americans favor suspending work on the current healthcare bill and seek alternatives; only 39% favor continuing to try to pass the bill being negotiated in conference committee.

“According to the poll, most self-identified Democrats (67%) want Congress to continue working toward passage of the bill. However, an even larger majority of Republicans (87%) call for suspension of Congress’ current work on the bill. The majority of political independents [56%], whose support has been crucial to recent Republican election victories in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey, would also prefer to see the reform efforts put on hold rather than moved forward.”

“A minority of 32% of Americans say President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress are right to make healthcare reform their top priority at this time. In contrast, 46% acknowledge health reform as an important goal but believe other problems should be addressed first, and an additional 19% reject the idea that healthcare should be a major legislative priority.”

An interesting sidebar to the results of this and other polls is that the positions taken by independent voters are closely mirrored in the national outcomes. In this example:

All voters39% – continue to try and pass current bill55% – suspend work on bill and consider alternatives

Independent voters 37% – continue to try and pass current bill56% – suspend work on bill and consider alternatives

Polling which fails to identify the positions of independent voters may, in fact, reflect the general positions of independents in the national “all voters” percentage outcomes. If reasonably correct, this information provides candidates and political parties with a general understanding of where independents stand on the issues.

The majority of Democrats appear to be out of step with the majority of all voters in the USA regarding the existing Congressional healthcare bill under consideration by the conference committee. They might want to pay attention to the opinions of independent voters if they intend to salvage the 2010 midterm elections. I wouldn’t expect that to happen if the blogs are a viable yardstick; independents and their positions are routinely ignored in favor of standard liberal-conservative presentations and arguments.

Independent voters represent roughly one third of all voters in the nation. Maybe it’s time for both major political parties and the blogs to wake up.

I guess I am supposed to be in awe with the fact that people generally follow Maslow’s hierachy of needs? People typically what to satisy their physical needs before they satisfy the higher level needs. So they seek security and jobs first.

So whats knew with the Pew Report Movie Guy? Nothing; however, it does not remove the fact that healthcare costs remain as one of the biggest threats to this nation’s economic welfare in spite of the fact that many people do not know it is or acknowledge such to be the case. The Pew report is bascially a report on what people do not know.

Healthcare Insurance is not the total answer; but, but, it is a partial answer to the problem and it can be built upon the same as Social Security was when it was first kicked off. You know that failure of a program that has kept the elderly from sinkcing into poverty for a few decades rather than turn them into soylent green. The same as medicare, SS is one of those programs that show the gov can occassionally get it right rather than build B2s or RB71s. The Senate Bill builds a foundation for something else to evolve rather than wait for the cost of healthcare to overwhelm us and the economy which will surpass the hypothetical problem of SS as the threat.

You told us what we moe than likely already know, the public doesn’t know and they have been fed a lin of BS by those who favor other interests and by those who wish to play both sides of the Street . . . Movie Guy. Enligten yourself rather than feeding the fire with you pseudo-facts and read The Urban Institute’s “The Failure to Enact Healthcare Reform,” http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411965_failure_to_enact.pdf. I case you do not want to travel to a website, I will put some detail (like I have on other occassions) to flesh my point as to why healthcare reform is just as important as jobs and banks (which was the big issue in MA).Key Findings:

1. In the worst-case scenario, the number of uninsured Americans would increase to 57.7 million in 2014 and to 65.7 million in 2019. In the best case the number of uninsured grows to 53.1 million in 2014 and 57.0 million in 2019. All of these estimates assume that states would continue to maintain current eligibility levels for public coverage. Without this, the number of uninsured would be even higher.2. In all three scenarios, we see a decline in ESI coverage rates. The ESI rate would fall from 56.1 percent in 2009 to 49.2 percent in 2019 in the worst scenario and to 53.9 percent in the best case.3. Under all three scenarios, there would be substantial increases in employer premiums for businesses of all sizes. We estimate that employer spending on premiums would increase from $429.8 billion in 2009 to $885.1 billion in 2019 in the worst-case scenario and $740.6 billion in the best case.4. Individual and family spending would increase significantly—from $326.4 billion in 2009 to $548.4 billion in 2019 in the worst-case scenario and to $476.2 billion in the best case.5. Medicaid and CHIP coverage would increase substantially with enrollment increasing from 16.5 percent of the population in 2009 to 20.3 percent in 2019 in the worst-case scenario, an increase of 13.3 million more Americans covered under public programs. Even in the best case, enrollment would increase to 18.3 percent of the population.6. Medicaid and CHIP expenditures would grow substantially both because of increased enrollment and because of higher health care costs. In the worst-case scenario, Medicaid and CHIP spending for the non-elderly would increase from $251.2 billion in 2009 to $519.7 billion in 2019. In the best case, […]

Movie Guy

January 26, 2010 12:35 am

The USA Today/Gallup poll conducted on January 20, 2010 indicated that 55% of Americans favor suspending work on the current healthcare bill and seeking alternatives; only 39% favor continuing to try to pass the bill being negotiated in conference committee.

“According to the poll, most self-identified Democrats (67%) want Congress to continue working toward passage of the bill. However, an even larger majority of Republicans (87%) call for suspension of Congress’ current work on the bill. The majority of political independents [56%], whose support has been crucial to recent Republican election victories in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey, would also prefer to see the reform efforts put on hold rather than moved forward.”

“A minority of 32% of Americans say President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress are right to make healthcare reform their top priority at this time. In contrast, 46% acknowledge health reform as an important goal but believe other problems should be addressed first, and an additional 19% reject the idea that healthcare should be a major legislative priority.”

An interesting sidebar to the results of this and other polls is that the positions taken by independent voters are closely mirrored in the national “all voters” outcomes. In this example:

All voters39% – continue to try and pass current bill55% – suspend work on bill and consider alternatives

Independent voters 37% – continue to try and pass current bill56% – suspend work on bill and consider alternatives

Polling which fails to identify the positions of independent voters may, in fact, reflect the general positions of independents in the national “all voters” percentage outcomes. If reasonably correct, this information provides candidates and political parties with a general understanding of where independents stand on many of the issues.

The majority of Democrats appear to be out of step with the majority of all voters in the USA regarding the existing Congressional healthcare bill under consideration by the conference committee. They might want to pay attention to the opinions of independent voters if they intend to salvage the 2010 midterm elections. I wouldn’t expect that to happen if the blogs are a viable yardstick; independents and their positions are routinely ignored in favor of standard liberal-conservative presentations and arguments.

Independent voters represent roughly one third of all voters in the nation. Maybe it’s time for both major political parties and the blogs to wake up.

I guess I am supposed to be in awe with the fact that people generally follow Maslow’s hierachy of needs? People typically what to satisy their physical needs before they satisfy the higher level needs. So they seek security and jobs first.

So whats knew with the Pew Report Movie Guy? Nothing; however, it does not remove the fact that healthcare costs remain as one of the biggest threats to this nation’s economic welfare in spite of the fact that many people do not know it is or acknowledge such to be the case. The Pew report is bascially a report on what people do not know.

Healthcare Insurance is not the total answer; but, but, it is a partial answer to the problem and it can be built upon the same as Social Security was when it was first kicked off. You know that failure of a program that has kept the elderly from sinkcing into poverty for a few decades rather than turn them into soylent green. The same as medicare, SS is one of those programs that show the gov can occassionally get it right rather than build B2s or RB71s. The Senate Bill builds a foundation for something else to evolve rather than wait for the cost of healthcare to overwhelm us and the economy which will surpass the hypothetical problem of SS as the threat.

You told us what we moe than likely already know, the public doesn’t know and they have been fed a lin of BS by those who favor other interests and by those who wish to play both sides of the Street . . . Movie Guy. Enligten yourself rather than feeding the fire with you pseudo-facts and read The Urban Institute’s “The Failure to Enact Healthcare Reform,” http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411965_failure_to_enact.pdf. I case you do not want to travel to a website, I will put some detail (like I have on other occassions) to flesh my point as to why healthcare reform is just as important as jobs and banks (which was the big issue in MA).Key Findings:

1. In the worst-case scenario, the number of uninsured Americans would increase to 57.7 million in 2014 and to 65.7 million in 2019. In the best case the number of uninsured grows to 53.1 million in 2014 and 57.0 million in 2019. All of these estimates assume that states would continue to maintain current eligibility levels for public coverage. Without this, the number of uninsured would be even higher.2. In all three scenarios, we see a decline in ESI coverage rates. The ESI rate would fall from 56.1 percent in 2009 to 49.2 percent in 2019 in the worst scenario and to 53.9 percent in the best case.3. Under all three scenarios, there would be substantial increases in employer premiums for businesses of all sizes. We estimate that employer spending on premiums would increase from $429.8 billion in 2009 to $885.1 billion in 2019 in the worst-case scenario and $740.6 billion in the best case.4. Individual and family spending would increase significantly—from $326.4 billion in 2009 to $548.4 billion in 2019 in the worst-case scenario and to $476.2 billion in the best case.5. Medicaid and CHIP coverage would increase substantially with enrollment increasing from 16.5 percent of the population in 2009 to 20.3 percent in 2019 in the worst-case scenario, an increase of 13.3 million more Americans covered under public programs. Even in the best case, enrollment would increase to 18.3 percent of the population.6. Medicaid and CHIP expenditures would grow substantially both because of increased enrollment and because of higher health care costs. In the worst-case scenario, Medicaid and CHIP spending for the non-elderly would increase from $251.2 billion in 2009 to $519.7 billion in 2019. In the best case, […]

sammy

January 26, 2010 12:38 am

run,

Jack is right. Obamacare was not so much a plan to PROVIDE everyone health insurance, but a plan to force everyone to PAY for health insurance, although I doubt many people bothered to read the fine print. (If they had, Brown would have won by 30 points). They read the big print, which said “GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE.”

You would have had a better chance packaging it as FREE HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE.

run75441

January 26, 2010 12:53 am

Movie Guy:I guess I am supposed to be in awe with the fact that people generally follow Maslow’s hierarchy of needs? People typically what to satisfy their physical needs before they satisfy the higher level needs. So they seek security and jobs first. So what’s new with the Pew Report Movie Guy? Nothing; however, it does not remove the fact that healthcare costs remain as one of the biggest threats to this nation’s economic welfare in spite of the fact that many people do not know it is or acknowledge such to be the case. The Pew report is basically a report on what people do not know.Healthcare Insurance is not the total answer; but, but, it is a partial answer to the problem and it can be built upon the same as Social Security was when it was first kicked off. You know that failure of a program that has kept the elderly from sinking into poverty for a few decades rather than turn them into soylent green. The same as Medicare, SS is one of those programs that show the gov can occasionally get it right rather than build B2s or RB71s. The Senate Bill builds a foundation for something else to evolve rather than wait for the cost of healthcare to overwhelm us and the economy which will surpass the hypothetical problem of SS as the threat. You told us what we more than likely already know, the public doesn’t know and they have been fed a line of BS by those who favor other interests and by those who wish to play both sides of the Street . . . Movie Guy. Enlighten yourself rather than feeding the fire with you pseudo-facts and read The Urban Institute’s “The Failure to Enact Healthcare Reform,” http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411965_failure_to_enact.pdf. I case you do not want to travel to a website, I will put some detail (like I have on other occasions) to flesh my point as to why healthcare reform is just as important as jobs and banks (which was the big issue in MA).Key Findings:“1. In the worst-case scenario, the number of uninsured Americans would increase to 57.7 million in 2014 and to 65.7 million in 2019. In the best case the number of uninsured grows to 53.1 million in 2014 and 57.0 million in 2019. All of these estimates assume that states would continue to maintain current eligibility levels for public coverage. Without this, the number of uninsured would be even higher. 2. In all three scenarios, we see a decline in ESI coverage rates. The ESI rate would fall from 56.1 percent in 2009 to 49.2 percent in 2019 in the worst scenario and to 53.9 percent in the best case. 3. Under all three scenarios, there would be substantial increases in employer premiums for businesses of all sizes. We estimate that employer spending on premiums would increase from $429.8 billion in 2009 to $885.1 billion in 2019 in the worst-case scenario and $740.6 billion in the best case.4. Individual and family spending would increase significantly—from $326.4 billion in 2009 to $548.4 billion in 2019 in the worst-case scenario and to $476.2 billion in the best case.5. Medicaid and CHIP coverage would increase substantially with enrollment increasing from 16.5 percent of the population in 2009 to 20.3 percent in 2019 in the […]

run75441

January 26, 2010 12:54 am

Movie Guy:I guess I am supposed to be in awe with the fact that people generally follow Maslow’s hierarchy of needs? People typically what to satisfy their physical needs before they satisfy the higher level needs. So they seek security and jobs first. So what’s new with the Pew Report Movie Guy? Nothing; however, it does not remove the fact that healthcare costs remain as one of the biggest threats to this nation’s economic welfare in spite of the fact that many people do not know it is or acknowledge such to be the case. The Pew report is basically a report on what people do not know.Healthcare Insurance is not the total answer; but, but, it is a partial answer to the problem and it can be built upon the same as Social Security was when it was first kicked off. You know that failure of a program that has kept the elderly from sinking into poverty for a few decades rather than turn them into soylent green. The same as Medicare, SS is one of those programs that show the gov can occasionally get it right rather than build B2s or RB71s. The Senate Bill builds a foundation for something else to evolve rather than wait for the cost of healthcare to overwhelm us and the economy which will surpass the hypothetical problem of SS as the threat. You told us what we more than likely already know, the public doesn’t know and they have been fed a line of BS by those who favor other interests and by those who wish to play both sides of the Street . . . Movie Guy. Enlighten yourself rather than feeding the fire with you pseudo-facts and read The Urban Institute’s “The Failure to Enact Healthcare Reform,” http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411965_failure_to_enact.pdf. I case you do not want to travel to a website, I will put some detail (like I have on other occasions) to flesh my point as to why healthcare reform is just as important as jobs and banks (which was the big issue in MA).Key Findings:“1. In the worst-case scenario, the number of uninsured Americans would increase to 57.7 million in 2014 and to 65.7 million in 2019. In the best case the number of uninsured grows to 53.1 million in 2014 and 57.0 million in 2019. All of these estimates assume that states would continue to maintain current eligibility levels for public coverage. Without this, the number of uninsured would be even higher. 2. In all three scenarios, we see a decline in ESI coverage rates. The ESI rate would fall from 56.1 percent in 2009 to 49.2 percent in 2019 in the worst scenario and to 53.9 percent in the best case. 3. Under all three scenarios, there would be substantial increases in employer premiums for businesses of all sizes. We estimate that employer spending on premiums would increase from $429.8 billion in 2009 to $885.1 billion in 2019 in the worst-case scenario and $740.6 billion in the best case.4. Individual and family spending would increase significantly—from $326.4 billion in 2009 to $548.4 billion in 2019 in the worst-case scenario and to $476.2 billion in the best case.5. Medicaid and CHIP coverage would increase substantially with enrollment increasing from 16.5 percent of the population in 2009 to 20.3 percent in 2019 in the […]

sammy

January 26, 2010 12:55 am

run,

Sorry, but the people don’t trust the Government to manage our health care. We don’t trust your competence, and we don’t trust your motives. We’re just not that into you.

run75441

January 26, 2010 12:56 am

Movie Guy:I guess I am supposed to be in awe with the fact that people generally follow Maslow’s hierarchy of needs? People typically what to satisfy their physical needs before they satisfy the higher level needs. So they seek security and jobs first. So what’s new with the Pew Report Movie Guy? Nothing; however, it does not remove the fact that healthcare costs remain as one of the biggest threats to this nation’s economic welfare in spite of the fact that many people do not know it is or acknowledge such to be the case. The Pew report is basically a report on what people do not know.Healthcare Insurance is not the total answer; but, but, it is a partial answer to the problem and it can be built upon the same as Social Security was when it was first kicked off. You know that failure of a program that has kept the elderly from sinking into poverty for a few decades rather than turn them into soylent green. The same as Medicare, SS is one of those programs that show the gov can occasionally get it right rather than build B2s or RB71s. The Senate Bill builds a foundation for something else to evolve rather than wait for the cost of healthcare to overwhelm us and the economy which will surpass the hypothetical problem of SS as the threat. You told us what we more than likely already know, the public doesn’t know and they have been fed a line of BS by those who favor other interests and by those who wish to play both sides of the Street . . . Movie Guy. Enlighten yourself rather than feeding the fire with you pseudo-facts and read The Urban Institute’s “The Failure to Enact Healthcare Reform,” http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411965_failure_to_enact.pdf. I case you do not want to travel to a website, I will put some detail (like I have on other occasions) to flesh my point as to why healthcare reform is just as important as jobs and banks (which was the big issue in MA).Key Findings:“1. In the worst-case scenario, the number of uninsured Americans would increase to 57.7 million in 2014 and to 65.7 million in 2019. In the best case the number of uninsured grows to 53.1 million in 2014 and 57.0 million in 2019. All of these estimates assume that states would continue to maintain current eligibility levels for public coverage. Without this, the number of uninsured would be even higher. 2. In all three scenarios, we see a decline in ESI coverage rates. The ESI rate would fall from 56.1 percent in 2009 to 49.2 percent in 2019 in the worst scenario and to 53.9 percent in the best case. 3. Under all three scenarios, there would be substantial increases in employer premiums for businesses of all sizes. We estimate that employer spending on premiums would increase from $429.8 billion in 2009 to $885.1 billion in 2019 in the worst-case scenario and $740.6 billion in the best case.4. Individual and family spending would increase significantly—from $326.4 billion in 2009 to $548.4 billion in 2019 in the worst-case scenario and to $476.2 billion in the best case.5. Medicaid and CHIP coverage would increase substantially with enrollment increasing from 16.5 percent of the population in 2009 to 20.3 percent in 2019 in the […]

sammy

January 26, 2010 1:00 am

run,

Who gives a rat ass (sorry dan) about your service.

I do. What is wrong with you?

CoRev

January 26, 2010 1:22 am

Run, why? It’s dead. Herre’s a stick, beat that dead horse some more.

rl love

January 26, 2010 1:51 am

My point is about integrity, not the MLR, or how much difference there is in admin costs. If you want to believe that the Dems have been honest in their arguments, then believe what you will.

The 60 minutes piece included interviews of those responsible for fraud investigations and they admitted that almost nothing is done due to budget issues. In the private sector I don’t remember how much is spent, but, I do remember from that same program that an entire industry has arisen in response to the demand for investigators. Those old toothless farts, if I remember correctly, compared the government’s fraud team of 2 investigators in a cubicle, with massive building, after massive building, of companies that specialize in fraud prevention. What I remember most is that the 60 Minutes crew was able to find phony medical supply businesses galore, there were several in just one seedy little business district in Miami. But, as I suggested above, it would require a nation wide investigation, much like the one done in Miami, to have any sense of how extensive the fraud actually is. So, as is so often the case, the existing analysis is mostly useless. And if you haven’t learned yet how the game is played, well, you can take your rude little demands and… But you are too smart for that, I was in fact impressed by how well you listed the remaining benefits of the bill over on Econospeak, as a matter of fact I showed your comment to my wife. But you have much to learn if insults such as “enlighten me”, and, “You are going to have to define this”, are how you respond to a simple and indisputable premise such as the one in question. It is all “spin” and since you seem unable to grasp that one integral piece of the puzzle — enlighten yourself.

rl love

January 26, 2010 1:54 am

Run,

I intended the following comment for you but somehow put it in the wrong place.

run75441

January 26, 2010 1:56 am

Jack:

“If”

Over the last decade the Median Household Income is less than what it was 10 years ago. That if that you cite is a pretty big “if.” The average family policy is still around $13,000 and an individual is around $7,000 under group coverage. You got a long ways to go before this begins to hurt someone and the tax is on everything over the upper limit.

Here is the detail:

Union employees will be exempt for the tax on expensive insurance plans until 2018, five years after the legislation takes effectGovernment employees will also be exempt until 2018The threshold defining “expensive” plans has been lifted from $8,500 to $9,000 for individual plans and from $23,000 to $24,000 for family plans. The threshold will rise further for plans where premiums are higher because the work force is older or includes more women Adjustments will also be made to spare plans in 17 states with particularly high health costs. The value of dental and vision benefits won’t count toward the thresholds. http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2010/01/update-the-cadillac-tax-will-raise-far-less-than-projected-and-wont-control-costs.html#more

The fix is in the indexing of the limits which can be achieved. In any sense, this is still not a reason to nix healthcare reform. It is a concern thouugh.

As far as the AMT, it was originally set for those making >$200,000 in 1969 which would “probably” be (I am lazy tonight so I won’t calculate it) some where north of $500,000 (a guess) today. That is rich. Everyone still believes $50,000 is middle class and $200,000 is rich. I tend to believe differently.

The healthcare reform plan is a skeleton of what it will be in 3 years and much will bbe worked out and changed by 2013. I share your concern.

run75441

January 26, 2010 2:00 am

Jack:

“If”

Over the last decade the Median Household Income is less than what it was 10 years ago. That “if” that you cite is a pretty big “if.” The average family policy is still around $13,000 and an individual is around $7,000 under group coverage. You got a long ways to go before this begins to hurt someone and the tax will be on everything over the upper limit.

Here is the detail:

– Union employees will be exempt for the tax on expensive insurance plans until 2018, five years after the legislation takes effectGovernment employees will also be exempt until 2018-The threshold defining “expensive” plans has been lifted from $8,500 to $9,000 for individual plans and from $23,000 to $24,000 for family plans. – The threshold will rise further for plans where premiums are higher because the work force is older or includes more women – Adjustments will also be made to spare plans in 17 states with particularly high health costs.– The value of dental and vision benefits won’t count toward the thresholds. http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2010/01/update-the-cadillac-tax-will-raise-far-less-than-projected-and-wont-control-costs.html#moreThe fix is in the indexing of the limits which can be achieved. In any sense, this is still not a reason to nix healthcare reform. It is a concern thouugh.

As far as the AMT, it was originally set for those making >$200,000 in 1969 which would “probably” be (I am lazy tonight so I won’t calculate it) some where north of $500,000 (a guess) today. That is rich. Everyone still believes $50,000 is middle class and $200,000 is rich. I tend to believe differently.

The healthcare reform plan is a skeleton of what it will be in 3 years and much will be worked out and changed by 2013. I share your concern.

Cantab

January 26, 2010 9:13 am

Run,

First, up my way we don’t call ourselves “dudes”, so please don’t address me like this again.

Before Brown won the electon Obama was set to have healthcare signed by the state of the union, today he has nothing. Making the observation that Brown’s win was like the Doolittle raid (small direct impact but huge indirect affect) and president Obama is going to state of the union speech with nothing is right on the mark. You lie when you say this is banal blathering.

Cantab

January 26, 2010 9:15 am

Run,

Who gives a rat ass (sorry dan) about your serviceOK bunky. I’m working my way down posts and this one showes you’re a total asshole.

Cantab

January 26, 2010 9:17 am

Run, Who gives a rat ass (sorry dan) about your serviceOK bunky. I’m working my way down posts and this one shows that you’re a total asshole.

Cantab

January 26, 2010 9:18 am

It’s not in my interest for a failed country and Obama is not the country.

Cantab

January 26, 2010 9:20 am

Sammy,It’s not in my interest for a failed country but Obama is not the country. Clinton had a failed presidency but the country did just fine despite his shenanigans.

Cantab

January 26, 2010 9:23 am

Run,

Vienna got a rose tonight on “The Bachelor.”This post stinks. If you’re too emotional given the set backs to the democrats I suggest you take a time out and come back after you’ve calmed down. You have several stinkers on this thread.

Greg

January 26, 2010 3:08 pm

Oh yeah and the motives of Aetna etc etc;

1) Charge as much as we can2) Deny as many claims as we can3) When we get a real big claim, sick some high paid paper pushers to find an unmentioned hang nail in your past so we can drop you for non disclosure of previous condition ie “fraud”4) Wipe our hands and find the next sucker5) Show Wall St how well we did this year taking peoples money and refusing the service they paid for.

I think Ill take govt incompetence to insurance company stealing

kharris

January 26, 2010 3:09 pm

Run,

There is a kind of a conversation in which a word or a group of words is used to mean fundamentally different things by various participants, with the difference not really showing on the surface. Take the word “about”. You say the election result wasn’t really “about” health care because,as the original post points out, the majority of people who cited health care as their main concern voted for the loser. How do Buffy and Cantab respond? First, by ignoring the evidence you offer. It is “about’ health care because they have a quote from the winner saying he’d be the 41st vote against expanding health care coverage. See? It’s “about” what the winner (or his cheering section) says it’s about. Is there evidence that people who voted for him shifted their vote in response to his health care position? Well, Buffy and Cantab haven’t offered any, and I’m not aware that there is any, but it could still be the case.

But let’s get back to this “about” business, because it helps clear up the question of evidence. You rely on data for your “about”. Buffy and Cantab ignore data, maybe sneer a bit, and move on to authority. All the usual right-wing outlets insist that the election result was “about” health care. Packed into the two uses of “about’ are the standard split between evidence and authority, between argument from fact and logic and argument by assertion. The same split we see over and over. A split that propogandists understand and exploit.

What to do? If saying something in a particular way makes your point vulnerable to hijacking by those for whom evidence is mostly a plot element in TV police drama, then say it in another way. Don’t say the result was or was not “about”. Rather, something along the lines of “Exit polling shows that most voters in the MA Senate election who cited health care as their main concern voted for Coakley. It is thus numerically impossible for voters who cite health care as their main concern in the election to make up the majority of votes for Brown. Some other issue or issues must therefore account for Brown’s win.” If the same survey which shows that most health-care-concerned voters supported Coakley also reveals the main concerns of those who voted for Brown, then problem solved.

I think it was because he provides such a good role-model in the effort to prevent under-age sexting.

kharris

January 26, 2010 3:21 pm

Funny. I’m one of the people, and what I don’t trust is anybody who claims that “the people” do or don’t trust, want, think, feel or need any particular thing. That’s more or less the “The Murcan people” propogand formula that politicans use on stump. Me, who is one of the people? I trust nameless faceless public bureaucrats far more than private sector firms motivated to make money at my expense.

The really silly thing about the Sammy’s nonsensical assertion is that there is very little government provided health care in either the Senate or House bill.

Jack

January 26, 2010 4:05 pm

“As far as the AMT, it was originally set for those making >$200,000 in 1969 which would “probably” be (I am lazy tonight so I won’t calculate it) some where north of $500,000 (a guess) today. That is rich. Everyone still believes $50,000 is middle class and $200,000 is rich. I tend to believe differently.” run75441

I think your guess is way off the actual mark. I file joint and together we’re no where near that stratosphere and have been getting hit by AMT every year for the past several. I’ll double check when I have more time. My understanding from general media reporting is that the AMT has been hitting people below the $200,000 (filing jointly) level. I’ll be back after a more careful review.

“They read the big print, which said “GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE.” sammy

That’s the very misleading Republican/Health Insurance lobby meme. The closest that any government in this country gets to running health care is at the VA and the municipal hospital systems around the country. Health care is still very much a private practice phenomenon though the hospital aspect is widely not for profit. What the reform was supposed to focus on is the finance aspect of health care. That is exactly what Medicare is all about. You go to your private doctor or whatever hospital they’re associated with. If you’re covered by Medicare you can go almost anywhere. If you’ve got private insurance, employer provided or individually purchased, you may have less choice.The private plans generally have contractual arrangements with health care providers and health care systems in a given community. You may be limited, because of the in and out of network financial restrictions, in your choice of provider.

It is the inadequacies of that financial control aspect that is supposed to be at the heart of health care reform. Unfortunately when profitability is at stake our representatives in the Congress don’t seem to understand who it is that they represent.

Maggie Mahar

January 26, 2010 5:42 pm

Since I wrote the original post above, let me try to respond to a few points.First it is simply not true that there are no cost controls in this bill. Most people who say this have not read the bill–or are deliberately lying because they are opposed to reform.

. Even the Congressional Budget Office (which is not friendly to this legislation) says that the Senate bill will REDUCE THE DEFICIT by reining in health care inflation. And the CBO has a history of Undestimating the savings that come with health reform legislation.

The conservatives have repeated the same misinformatoin so many times that people believe that there are no cost controls in the legislation. How then, do you think that it reduces the deficit???.

The legislation lays the groundwork for Medicare to change what it pays for , how it pays for it, and how healthcare is delivered–moving away from fee-for-servcice payment and using financial carrots and sticks to encourage higher quality, lower cost care by cutting waste and refusing to pay hospitals for inefficiency and errors.

The government now pays more than half of the nation’s $2.6 trillion health care bills. If it incorporates Medicare reforms in all of its payments (for Medicaid, for government employees’ insurance) this will have a huge effect on health care spending. Many private insurers have already said that if Medicare provides political cover, they will follow its lead in cutting fees for pservcies that provide little benefit to patients.

Secondly— if we pass the Senate bill now, we have at least three years to amend it.

For instance, I am strongly opposed to the Cadillac Tax. So are many members of the House. I doubt that it will survive — by 2013 it will no longer be in the legislation, assuming that the Democrats remain in control fo the legislation.

There are many other elements of the legislation that need to be changed. This is what alwayhs appens with any important piece of social legislation. Keep in mind: when we passed Social Secruity, it excluded blacks and most women.

No one should expect that we could reform a $2.6 trillion industry with one piece of legislation. Its naive to think that could possible happepn. It will take many bills, many amendments. Look at how other large countries have reformed healthcare: Health Care REform is Always a Process–Never An Event.

Moreover, no bill that this pretty moderate Congress passes is going to be the bill that we need.

But it is a start. And unless we start now, we run a real risk that the Democrats will be painted as “unable to govern”—Jimmy Carter all over again.

. Democrats in Congres will lose a huge number of seats in the next election. Obama will be a dead man walking– he won’t be able to get anything done for hte rest of his term.He will not be re-elected for a second term. Conservatives will re-take Washington. (Voters will blame Obama because the economy will still be in the tank 3 years from now.)We won’t even attempt real reform for another 7 years, and by then it will be too late. Wewon’t be able to afford it.

So we must begin the process now, by passing legislation that we can then work on.

Third– Medicare doesn’t spend as much as it should trying to ferret out fraud and abuse–but neither do private insurers. Read my book: Money-Driven Medicine to see how private insurers turn a blind eye to fraud and then just pass the cost along in the form of higher premiums.

Fourth Medicare’s administrative costs are lower because it doesn’t have to market and […]

Maggie Mahar

January 26, 2010 6:17 pm

Corev & Movie Guy

Corev–

From what you say, it’s clear that you haven’t read the bill–or at least not closely.

(Couldn’t help but notice how you dodged Run’s question when he asked you to name one detail of the bill.)

I’m not a Democrat, so this is not about the Democrats winning. (Far to the left of the party. I wasn’t even an Obama supporter–thought he was too soft, too young, not a fighter I just wish he had Nancy Pelosi’s balls. .)

I am a progressive keenly interested in health care reform. And I am experienced enough to know that reform will be a process, not an event.

It will take many pieces of legislation to get the reform we want.Have you read about the passage of Medicare & Medicaid and the changes that had to be made int he years that followed?

Have you read about hte passage of Social Security?

Have you read about the evolultion of health care reform on other large develped countires?

You start with a deeply flawed plan and go from there.

Movie Guy

Have you seen the Kaiser Tracking Poll that shows that most people don’t know what is in the Senate bill?

Many don’t know that it provides subsidies to help low-income and middle-income people buy insurance.

Most serniors don’t know that it helps close the donut hole which forces them to pay for durgs out-of-pocket.

The vast majority don’t know how it regualtes private insurers: they can no longer cap lifetime benefits, they can no longer charge women more. Many people don’t even know that insurers won’t be able to deny coverage to people with pre-exstiing condtioins and that insurers will nto be able to charge them more.

Most people don’t know that insurers will have to pay out a certain percentage of premiums in reimbursemnts–or give customers a partial refund on their premiums.

Why don’t most people know these things? Because the bill is long and all of the benfits and savings are in the details. Meanwhile, conservatives and others who haven’t read the bill have been spreading so much misinformation that many people are just confused.

You might also want to read my most recent post on the state of hte ecnoomy and the need for healthcare reform.

Cantab

January 26, 2010 6:45 pm

Margery,

Fifth–and this is for Cantab : You write: “Brown ran on the fact that he would be the crucial vote against the healthcare bill.” True, and the polls show that the people who voted for him knew that. But half of the people who voted for him say that made them like him less, but they voted for him anyway.

Then why did they vote for him? He actually was not that great of a candidate, he did not sount that smart. I only liked him for ideological reasons. And Coakley was not a horrible candidate. I did not like her because I see her as an unimaginative plain Jane, but I don’t see this a reason for her have lost the democratic vote. There were no scandals, no major gaffs (Schilling does not count), and she did alright in the debates.

I also have a red flag for the democrats. It appears that people in minority populations only get excited when one of their own is running or maybe someone from another minority group that gets sympathy as the underdog. But look at the faces of most democrats and they look about the same as those of the republicans. So will the democrats run all minority candidates in the future to fire up their base. If not I question their advantage from changing demographics.

ideology

Cantab

January 26, 2010 6:46 pm

Margery,Fifth–and this is for Cantab : You write: “Brown ran on the fact that he would be the crucial vote against the healthcare bill.” True, and the polls show that the people who voted for him knew that. But half of the people who voted for him say that made them like him less, but they voted for him anyway.

Then why did they vote for him? He actually was not that great of a candidate, he did not sount that smart. I only liked him for ideological reasons. And Coakley was not a horrible candidate. I did not like her because I see her as an unimaginative plain Jane, but I don’t see this a reason for her have lost the democratic vote. There were no scandals, no major gaffs (Schilling does not count), and she did alright in the debates.

I also have a red flag for the democrats. It appears that people in minority populations only get excited when one of their own is running or maybe someone from another minority group that gets sympathy as the underdog. But look at the faces of most democrats and they look about the same as those of the republicans. So will the democrats run all minority candidates in the future to fire up their base. If not I question their advantage from changing demographics.

Cantab

January 26, 2010 7:21 pm

Maggie,

Healthcare is a commodity and if you had a better definition of what a commodity is you would have never said it was not one. You also don’t seem to understand value and would probably be surprised that a person crawling out of the desert would value a bottle of water more than somebody in a resturant after finishing a satisfying meal. And a bottle of water is not a very comples commodity.

Give that you name drop using names like Kenneth Arrow perhaps you might look at Gerard Debreu’s definition of a commodity. His defintion for a commodity includes all possible attributes of something including location, time, and circumstances that it become available (such as an umbrella on a rainy day).

I suggest that you learn the terms and how to do a proper economic analysis and then gi back and rewrite your book.

Gérard Debreu

In your book you say that health care is not a commodity

Cantab

January 26, 2010 7:22 pm

Maggie,

Healthcare is a commodity and if you had a better definition of what a commodity is you would have never said it was not one. You also don’t seem to understand value and would probably be surprised that a person crawling out of the desert would value a bottle of water more than somebody in a resturant after finishing a satisfying meal. And a bottle of water is not a very comples commodity.

Give that you name drop using names like Kenneth Arrow perhaps you might look at Gerard Debreu’s definition of a commodity. His defintion for a commodity includes all possible attributes of something including location, time, and circumstances that it become available (such as an umbrella on a rainy day).

I suggest that you learn the terms and how to do a proper economic analysis and then gi back and rewrite your book.

Cantab

January 26, 2010 7:22 pm

Maggie,

Healthcare is a commodity and if you had a better definition of what a commodity is you would have never said it was not one. You also don’t seem to understand value and would probably be surprised that a person crawling out of the desert would value a bottle of water more than somebody in a resturant after finishing a satisfying meal. And a bottle of water is not a complex commodity.

Give that you name drop using names like Kenneth Arrow perhaps you might look at Gerard Debreu’s definition of a commodity. His defintion for a commodity includes all possible attributes of something including location, time, and circumstances that it become available (such as an umbrella on a rainy day).

I suggest that you learn the terms and how to do a proper economic analysis and then gi back and rewrite your book.

Cantab

January 26, 2010 7:29 pm

Maggie,

Healthcare is a commodity and if you had a better definition of what a commodity is you would have never said it was not one. You also don’t seem to understand value and would probably be surprised that a person crawling out of the desert would value a bottle of water more than somebody in a resturant after finishing a satisfying meal. And a bottle of water is not a complex commodity.

Give that you name drop using names like Kenneth Arrow perhaps you might look at Gerard Debreu’s definition of a commodity. His defintion for a commodity includes all possible attributes of something including location, time, and circumstances that it become available (such as an umbrella on a rainy day).

I suggest that you learn the terms and also learn how to do a proper economic analysis and then go back and rewrite your book. You act as if your writing is based on analysis but since you don’t appear to understand the elements of the analysis there is no way for you to synthesis it into a concise argument. Writers tend to lean the lingo but they overshoot when they start believing this makes them experts in a field.

Cantab

January 26, 2010 7:36 pm

Maggie,

I looked at you book “Money Driven Medicine” on Amazon.com, and I don’t take your position and think you got off to a bad start by not understanding that a commodity (or service actually) is.

Healthcare is a commodity and if you had a better definition of what a commodity is you would have never said it was not one. You also don’t seem to graps value and would probably be surprised that someone crawling out of the desert would value a bottle of water more than somebody in a resturant after finishing a satisfying meal. And a bottle of water is not a complex commodity.

Give that you name drop using names like Kenneth Arrow perhaps you might look at Gerard Debreu’s definition of a commodity. His defintion for a commodity includes all possible attributes of something including location, time, and circumstances that it becomes available (such as an umbrella on a rainy day).

I suggest that you learn the terms and also learn how to do a proper economic analysis and then go back and rewrite your book. You act as if your writing is based on analysis but since you don’t appear to understand the elements of the analysis there is no way for you to synthesis it into a concise argument. Writers tend to lean the lingo but they overshoot when they start believing this makes them experts in a field.

Yes, I follow the Kaiser information as it is my primary source on healthcare matters, and I have posted their links in comments at Angry Bear.

The bottom line on the Senate healthcare bill is simple: Pelosi has stated that she doesn’t have enough votes to support it in the House. Hoyer has indicated the same, though he has cited four courses of action. Whether anything will come of the alternative courses of action is another matter.

I expect that we will have further healthcare legislation from the Congress, but the Senate bill is DOA in the House and a number of changes to it will not insure passage of a conference bill by the House and Senate. The Democrats in Congress missed their window. They were caught sleeping on the Massachusetts election. How the Democratic leadership can ever live that down is beyond me. Sheer stupidity.

I appreciate your blogging efforts and general enthusiasm, and I share your concerns about the economy, wage earnings, and healthcare problems.

I would focus some attention on the provisions in the House and Senate healthcare bills that are likely to survive in the next round of Congressional legislative initiatives on healthcare. I expect that is where we are at this point.

Yes, I follow the Kaiser information as it is my primary source on healthcare matters, and I have posted their links in comments at Angry Bear.

The bottom line on the Senate healthcare bill is simple: Pelosi has stated that she doesn’t have enough votes to support it in the House. Hoyer has indicated the same, though he has cited four courses of action. Whether anything will come of the alternative courses of action is another matter.

I expect that we will have further healthcare legislation from the Congress, but the Senate bill is DOA in the House and a number of changes to it will not insure passage of a conference bill by the House and Senate. The Democrats in Congress missed their window. They were caught sleeping on the Massachusetts election. How the Democratic leadership can ever live that down is beyond me. Sheer stupidity.

I appreciate your blogging efforts and general enthusiasm, and share your concerns about the economy, wage earnings, and healthcare problems.

I would focus some attention on the provisions in the House and Senate healthcare bills that are likely to survive in the next round of Congressional legislative initiatives on healthcare. I expect that is where we are at this point.

Appreciate your comments.

Movie Guy

January 26, 2010 8:23 pm

Run – “You told us what we more than likely already know, the public doesn’t know and they have been fed a line of BS by those who favor other interests and by those who wish to play both sides of the Street . . . Movie Guy. Enlighten yourself rather than feeding the fire with you pseudo-facts and read The Urban Institute’s “The Failure to Enact Healthcare Reform,“

I am very familiar with the healthcare legislation and the healthcare cost issues going forward. Save your arrogant rants for someone else.

I could care less if you’re displeased with the Pew Research Center poll. Tough.

Healthcare legislation has not been the number one issue in any national polls of major issues. At best, the issue has scored a distant second in public concerns and typically falls to fourth place in some polls.

The Senate healthcare bill is DOA in the U.S. House. So, the Congress will have to undertake another course of action.

You’re like a lot of commenters who trash talk the American public. Same old know-it-alls who fail to realize that the American voters decide what is most important to them, and not you. The Democrat Party is in a current mess because of that arrogance and that is what happened to the Republican Party. Both major political parties suck. People aren’t going to put up with that arrogance.

I am not surprised that the majority of American voters want the Congress to start over on this issue.

Movie Guy

January 26, 2010 8:23 pm

Run – “You told us what we more than likely already know, the public doesn’t know and they have been fed a line of BS by those who favor other interests and by those who wish to play both sides of the Street . . . Movie Guy. Enlighten yourself rather than feeding the fire with you pseudo-facts and read The Urban Institute’s “The Failure to Enact Healthcare Reform,”

I am very familiar with the healthcare legislation and the healthcare cost issues going forward. Save your arrogant rants for someone else.

I could care less if you’re displeased with the Pew Research Center poll. Tough.

Healthcare legislation has not been the number one issue in any national polls of major issues. At best, the issue has scored a distant second in public concerns and typically falls to fourth place in some polls.

The Senate healthcare bill is DOA in the U.S. House. So, the Congress will have to undertake another course of action.

You’re like a lot of commenters who trash talk the American public. Same old know-it-alls who fail to realize that the American voters decide what is most important to them, and not you. The Democrat Party is in a current mess because of that arrogance and that is what happened to the Republican Party. Both major political parties suck. People aren’t going to put up with that arrogance.

I am not surprised that the majority of American voters want the Congress to start over on this issue.

Movie Guy

January 26, 2010 8:24 pm

Run – “You told us what we more than likely already know, the public doesn’t know and they have been fed a line of BS by those who favor other interests and by those who wish to play both sides of the Street . . . Movie Guy. Enlighten yourself rather than feeding the fire with you pseudo-facts and read The Urban Institute’s “The Failure to Enact Healthcare Reform,”

I am very familiar with the healthcare legislation and the healthcare cost issues going forward. Save your arrogant rants for someone else.

I could care less if you’re displeased with the Pew Research Center poll. Tough.

Healthcare legislation has not been the number one issue in any national polls of major issues. At best, the issue has scored a distant second in public concerns and typically falls to fourth place in some polls.

The Senate healthcare bill is DOA in the U.S. House. So, the Congress will have to undertake another course of action.

You’re like a lot of commenters who trash talk the American public. Same old know-it-alls who fail to realize that the American voters decide what is most important to them, and not you. The Democrat Party is in a current mess because of that arrogance and that is what happened to the Republican Party. Both major political parties suck. People aren’t going to put up with that arrogance.

I am not surprised that the majority of American voters want the Congress to start over on this issue.

Movie Guy

January 26, 2010 8:26 pm

Run – “You told us what we more than likely already know, the public doesn’t know and they have been fed a line of BS by those who favor other interests and by those who wish to play both sides of the Street . . . Movie Guy. Enlighten yourself rather than feeding the fire with you pseudo-facts and read The Urban Institute’s “The Failure to Enact Healthcare Reform,”

I am very familiar with the healthcare legislation and the healthcare cost issues going forward. Save your arrogant rants for someone else.

I could care less if you’re displeased with the Pew Research Center poll. Tough.

Healthcare legislation has not been the number one issue in any national polls of major issues. At best, the issue has scored a distant second in public concerns and typically falls to fourth place in some polls.

The Senate healthcare bill is DOA in the U.S. House. So, the Congress will have to undertake another course of action.

You’re like a lot of commenters who trash talk the American public. Same old know-it-alls who fail to realize that the American voters decide what is most important to them, and not you. The Democrat Party is in a current mess because of that arrogance and that is what happened to the Republican Party. Both major political parties suck. People aren’t going to put up with that arrogance.

I am not surprised that the majority of American voters want the Congress to start over on this issue.

Movie Guy

January 26, 2010 8:29 pm

Run – “You told us what we more than likely already know, the public doesn’t know and they have been fed a line of BS by those who favor other interests and by those who wish to play both sides of the Street . . . Movie Guy. Enlighten yourself rather than feeding the fire with you pseudo-facts and read The Urban Institute’s “The Failure to Enact Healthcare Reform,”

I am very familiar with the healthcare legislation and the healthcare cost issues going forward. Save your arrogant rants for someone else.

I could care less if you’re displeased with the Pew Research Center poll. Tough.

Healthcare legislation has not been the number one issue in any national polls of major issues. At best, the issue has scored a distant second in public concerns and typically falls to fourth place in some polls.

The Senate healthcare bill is DOA in the U.S. House. So, the Congress will have to undertake another course of action.

You’re like a lot of commenters who trash talk the American public. Same old know-it-alls who fail to realize that the American voters decide what is most important to them, and not you. The Democrat Party is in a current mess because of that arrogance and that is what happened to the Republican Party. Both major political parties suck. People aren’t going to put up with that arrogance.

I am not surprised that the majority of American voters want the Congress to start over on this issue.

run75441

January 26, 2010 11:18 pm

rl love:

I have read your words a few times now and have found them to be encouraging . . . someone who actually thinks rather than parrot as many do around here. It is not enounh to say 60 Minutes says or cite this article as saying someting about people without being able to internalize what was being said and assign a meaning to it. You are an intelligent person and I enjoy your presence here at Angry Bear.

No politician has integrity. I find myself congratulating Stabenow for voting against Conrad Gregg and demeaning Levin for voting for it and quite the opposite in both cases with regard to usury. It is like herding cats. If I were to choose between Dems and Repubs, I would go to the former as they have a history of being more friendly to labor versus capital. We still believe in trickle down economics except the financially powerful have fixed the washer in the faucet and there is no more trickle of productivity gains to us/labor anymore. Productivity gains have been skewed away from nonfarm labor to capital. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg (spencer’s nonfarm labor versus business).

Bruce Webb, myself, and others took the time to read the Senate Bill and the Manager’s Amendment. I even documented key parts of it for this purpose as too much has been said to defame the content of it in the hopes the rabble will rise up in anger and spite themselves. The Republicans certainly attained that goal. The vote in MA was not about healthcare reform as much as jobs and banks. And here I sit, with 4 degrees, a lean six sigma guru, and jobless. So what would you tell me sir?

Fraud has always been a huge problem so much so that the banking industry has perpetuated one of the largest frauds ever accomplished in the history of the US. A fraud so large it took $700 billion from the treasury in TARP funds, TALF fund, other acronym funds, and ~$7 trillion in Fed funds to rescue Wall Street and the banking/financial industry. How many $billions do we loose to the old geezers who, and the boomers are not the largest reason for the rise in healthcare costs, are victimized in healthcare fraud? There is a push to contain healthcare fraud and meanwhile on Wall Street, business is as usual. 60 minutes would be well served to do an expose on Wall Street.

I invited Maggie here and cross posted her posts from Health Beat. She has a lot of good things to say and I agree with what she has to say, Charley at econospeak didn’t have a clue as to what he was saying and I was mean to him; but, I also took the time to present data that I know to be true. Different case here with some of these posters on Angry Bear and a different approach. I will be cross posting other posts of Maggie’s on healthcare.

I am sorry I have disappointed you in my choice of words even though they were expressed in a genuine manner. I was hoping you had some depth to your statements and I ccould pick you brain. Peace rl love.

run75441

January 26, 2010 11:20 pm

Cantab:

Non sequitors really make a difference don’t they? I am from Missouri too. Wow, that made a difference in understanding.

run75441

January 26, 2010 11:24 pm

Hi Jack:

Reread my post and the date references. And yes the AMT is striking lower that that now, between $75,00 and $100,000 for starters. The AMT is not indexed to inflation.

run75441

January 27, 2010 12:38 am

Some Guy:

Watch the Medicare initiative in payments for services. There are also initiatives for hospitals and physicians in the Manager’s Amendment. Thanks for hanging around

run75441

January 27, 2010 12:39 am

CoRev:

So, you don’t know.

run75441

January 27, 2010 12:41 am

not relevant

Cantab

January 27, 2010 8:38 am

Run,

You’re not smart or well educated enough to know what is relevant and what’s not.

Jack

January 27, 2010 10:05 am

run,Thanks for the point. you saved me a lot of time. Unfortunately it’s still costing me more money than I think to be reasonable. Is there any such thing as a high yield municipal bond?

run75441

January 27, 2010 12:21 pm

Movie Guy:

I am not displeased with the PEW report, I am suggesting you imply more in it than it actually states. You are suggesting that it reflects a displeasure by the constituency of this healthcare reform which is not the case at all and Maggie’s article certainly disputes your contention. What the PEW report and the Gallup polls reflect is the lack of knowledge on the current healthcare reform and what the future portends for healthcare which is aptly detailed in The Urban Institute study. Of course, they would rank jobs and the economy as #1, etc.; but then too, jobs have been an issue since 2001 as well as the economy. The constituency’s knowledge and ability to make a knowledgeable decision has been distorted by the media and athe anti-healthcare reform people.

If anything the Dems and Obama are quilty of poor PR and not bringing the issues out into the open. The anti-healthcare reform lobby has certainly done a marvelous job of distorting the Senate Healthcare Bill . . . and you buy into it. I am not convinced of your knowledge. Drink some more of the kool-aid and make sure you try the cherry flavor.

Rdan

January 27, 2010 1:58 pm

John Sides: The Monkey Cage: A nice tidbit from the Washington Post/KFF/Harvard poll of MA special election voters (pdf): “As you may know, Massachusetts has a law that is aimed at assuring that virtually all Massachusetts residents have health insurance. Given what you know about it, in general, do you support or oppose the Massachusetts Universal Health Insurance Law?”Among Brown voters, 51% support this law and 44% oppose it.

coberly

January 27, 2010 2:01 pm

Cantab

the Doolittle raid was a good way to kill a lot of good pilots and crew to cheer up the local newspapers. it did nothing to the momentum of the war. That was changed at Midway.

Movie Guy

January 27, 2010 3:24 pm

run75441 – “I am not displeased with the PEW report, I am suggesting you imply more in it than it actually states. You are suggesting that it reflects a displeasure by the constituency of this healthcare reform which is not the case at all and Maggie’s article certainly disputes your contention.”

The Pew survey states what it states. Nothing more. Nothing less. The survey is 19 pages long. There are few rocks left unturned. People familiar with the purpose and methodology of this survey note the issue focus changes from year to year. That’s the purpose of the survey.

Maggie’s blog post of 24 January stated in regard to Massachusetts voters (polling conducted by Hart Research Associates for the AFL-CIO on the evening of the election): “Health care reform placed a distant second: “Electing a candidate who is committed to controlling health care costs and covering the uninsured” (single most/very important factor)among only 54% of all voters.” That is consistent with many national polls. Again, no surprise.

run75441 – “What the PEW report and the Gallup polls reflect is the lack of knowledge on the current healthcare reform and what the future portends for healthcare which is aptly detailed in The Urban Institute study.”

That’s your opinion. The Urban Institute study is a mere nine pages long including the cover if one excludes the breakdown by states. Nothing new was covered in the nine pages.

run75441 – “The constituency’s knowledge and ability to make a knowledgeable decision has been distorted by the media and athe anti-healthcare reform people.”

The action is in the Congress. It’s the Members’ responsibility to inform their voters or clear up misconceptions.

run75441 – “If anything the Dems and Obama are quilty of poor PR and not bringing the issues out into the open. The anti-healthcare reform lobby has certainly done a marvelous job of distorting the Senate Healthcare Bill . . . and you buy into it.”

run75441 – “I am not convinced of your knowledge. Drink some more of the kool-aid and make sure you try the cherry flavor.”

I could care less what you think of my “knowledge”. The action rests with the Congress.

Cantab

January 27, 2010 5:07 pm

Rdan,

If you had health insurance before the new Massachusetts law and then afterwards I don’t see why you would be against the bill. The bill did nothing to make you worse off. Try doing this poll amoung the healthy young self employed people that suddently have to come up with an extra 4-5 grand and I think you’ll get different results. So if 85 percent of people in Masschusetts were already insured then 44 opposing it seems very high to me.